Richard Marles gets to the root of our problem with China

I was heartened and surprised to hear the deputy prime minister telling China to be more open. The story appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald website today. Surprised because I have no great faith in the ability of Labor politicians to act independent of ideology, though hearing the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, advance broadly the same foreign policy as the previous government was a relief. Labor is not known for its depth of talent and it’s unarguable that most of its operatives come from a very narrow gene pool in the union movement.

This link to the historical left is particularly problematic when it comes to dealing with China because China’s government, also, comes from the historical left. While Labor is vocally proud of the legacy of freedom represented by Westminster democracy, China is still sceptical because of its experience in the 19th century, a time of humiliation and disappointment. While the British monarchy was wrong to allow Parliament to attack China with steam-powered ships, on the other hand the Chinese emperor was certainly wrong to refuse to open up to the West.

So there were mistakes on both sides, but this embedded memoir of suffering and the use of force for illegitimate reasons colours Australia’s relations with the Middle Kingdom today. Marles is certainly right to focus on a root cause of distrust, which is China’s complete avoidance of a free media ecosystem in favour of approved government mouthpieces. Having said that China must be sceptical of the ability of free media outlets to steer public opinion – and thereby the direction of government – in the right way. I have no doubt that the Chinese president feels scorn for Western media given his country’s experience. Even in more recent times, in Australia, media outlets in New South Wales and other states attacked Chinese people in a way that, today, we would find reprehensible if we were exposed to it. 

Of course we are not. Perhaps the Australian government could launch a Truth and Reconciliation Commission like a royal commission that could hold hearings hearing both sides in a public forum. You could have historians and politicians, representatives from local ethnic communities, journalists and writers – all participating in a vibrant gabfest of claim and counterclaim to rival Master Chef in colour and appeal. What would such a forum do for our relations with China? It might show her that being open has its advantages.

Alternative voices in the public sphere silenced by fire

I regret the need to use incendiary terms to express myself but the topic warrants the deployment of the word “fire” especially since there is a precedent in the term “flame war”. The voices I’m talking about are supported by many but heard by few in the channels that matter most to them, which is the traditional media. It’s surprising how powerless people evidently feel when they think that their extreme expressions – surrounding ideas spawned by political debate – don’t matter and that, in fact, the more extreme the expressions that are used the more important must be the views of the speaker.

But when they cave into such impulses they limit the reach of their views because the mainstream media shuts them out. The term “sewer rat” which some journalists use to characterise the angels of Twitter, all those anonymous tragics who gravitate to the heat given off by #auspol like moths to a flame, gets adopted with pride in people’s Twitter handles. It becomes a badge of honour, like a tattoo. 

Graffiti tagging gets cleaned off walls by councils and homeowners in the same way that the aggressive comments of our guardian angels are wiped off the front pages by members of the press gallery. With the noise a lot of legitimate questions become invisible and the polis suffers as a result. The system is rendered less representative and people move further to the margins, so the machine of state itself gets attacked instead of the ideas belonging to other side of the political divide. 

Popularism and popularity become muddled in this grey zone that exists in the moment, but that can be mined for ammunition by the more committed among us. Trawling through old posts put out in the heat of the moment becomes like a raw academic debate: you said this, I said that. Tit for tat and beggar take the hindmost. 

Ring a-ring a-rosey, we all fall down. If only we could use this “work” to practical purpose, but it seems futile to wish for such a thing as people on all sides denigrate those who dare contradict them. In the old days, when I was at secondary school, we had debating societies. Personally, being more interested in art, I never saw the virtue of such things, but now I do. It’s a reminder of the benefit of the old in the face of the new, because perhaps by regularising all the effort, bringing it into some manageable form where different people who fulfill different roles can discuss the issues we all agree are important, we might find that there are solutions to pressing problems that remain to be solved. It should be easier to find common ground. 

Google market listings frustratingly circumscribe data

This is an anecdotal account of a Google failure, but bear with me as it links in with a previous post. That was about Facebook, but the problem is the same. 

So what’s the problem? It’s about how forms pigeon hole people, places and things. It’s about the exceptions that get typecast. It’s about flexibility. With Facebook Marketplace it was the issue of pricing, where I’d want to sell a number of similar items for a unified cost (3 for $5, for example). This time with Google it’s about opening hours.

When you look up a business on Google you usually want a few crucial bits of information in order to accomplish your goals. It might be a street address, it might be opening hours, it might be the phone number. You need to get somewhere to buy something but you’re not sure if you’re going to be on-time. Do you have time to drive with your friends across town and arrive before the places closes? You want to know before setting out so you don’t waste fuel and time.

Not long ago I was in a big rush because Google said that the flower markets that Saturday closed at 8.30am. The website the organisation published said 11am when I’d consulted it the day before when I was at home but my friend’s fiancé (we were intent on getting flowers for the wedding) looked at his mobile phone when we were in the car and said that the markets were about to shut. It was still before eight o’clock but we still had to drive all the way across town. An argument ensued. Everyone was blamed. A cup of soy milk was thrown, wetting the interior of the car.

Later, when we’d got the flowers, I cleaned up the car using a Chux wipe and some water but some of the residue would still be hanging in weeks later. In the event we bought $146 worth of flowers but only two of us ended up getting to the markets as my friend’s fiancé got out of the car, soaking wet, and caught the train back home.

None of this drama would’ve been necessary if Google had a way to say “Stallholders start closing at 8.30am but the facility only shuts at 11am.” The problem is that the interface Google has constructed eliminates all complexity. 

So much anguish because of the tyranny of forms.

I’ve worked in software and so I know that getting the interface between the people and the machine right can take time. You need to anticipate exceptions before you make the rules otherwise you get conflict. You get sharp words. You get recriminations. Heartache. You need to accommodate the richness of life if you want to avoid typecasting people and places. Like Facebook, Google has to change.

Mainstream media to play a growing role as Trump media comes online

In the old days, in other countries, when the military decided to take over they first went to the TV station so that they could control messaging. In China today – even in the heart of our own century – the government decided to play by different rules and to set up alternative public spaces to harbour discussion, and so new social media companies came into existence. Now, Donald Trump has just appointed a new CEO for his new socmed company, a former Republican Congressman named Devin Nunes.

Since many people were disgusted by Trump’s encouragement of the January Congress riots, and since many on the other side will follow Trump anywhere he leads, what you’re going to have in the United States is an increasingly polarised public sphere where the mainstream media – which will include people with stronger stomachs than most, who’ll be paid to take out accounts on Trump’s platform so they can monitor developments and trends there – will play a growing role in the community.

Because of this there’ll be times when Trump might disenfranchise journalists who don’t follow his line, disabling their accounts, removing posts, or even provoking pile-ons. As a result many journalists will use anonymous accounts in order to monitor debate, and so that they can get information without being blocked or censured. Anonymity is a pressing matter in Australia, where the government is developing laws that’ll make it mandatory for social media companies to divulge the identities and contact details of people whose remarks are deemed by a court to be offensive and defamatory. If they don’t do so, the government says, they themselves will be liable in any court case brought as a result of actionable comments made on their platforms.

It’s important for the Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government to carefully word such laws as it’s clear that anonymity is going to remain, in many countries, an important resource for the legitimate participation of various actors in several spheres of endeavour. You need to balance the requirements of many different parties if you’re not going to cause harm in one way by achieving justice in another way. I look forward to what eventuates, and no doubt the mainstream media will, as usual, report in a balanced way on such developments. At least, in Australia, we don’t have rogue politicians seeking to establish a personal public domain where their messages can go unchallenged. We’re lucky to have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which supplies reliable information for all citizens (and even for some people living overseas).

Melbourne protest rally might be turning point for civility in social media

In the middle of this month a protest rally on account of new laws the Labor government wanted to enact regarding Covid and the health response caused hundreds of people to flock to the streets. Visible among them was a cart with a gallows and three nooses. Missiles were hurled, resulting in injuries. The language on some of the placards was intemperate.

On social media prominent left-wing commentators themselves protested the rally but ignored how they, themselves, often use intemperate language in order to achieve their rhetorical goals. Flaming and ridicule are part of the arsenal of such individuals – who often hide behind anonymity online – and this had caused the prime minister to vociferate publicly against the tenor of debate. Earlier in the month he’d even voiced ideas about making the big tech companies more accountable for what was published on their platforms.

Australia had already moved in this direction, the High Court finding that media companies are responsible for the comments people leave on their Facebook pages. Morrison (the PM) was saying what many – people like me, who sit in the centre – think: that online conversations need to be more responsive to the real world and that the freewheeling tone of social media is becoming more and more toxic.

On TV, the leader of the Opposition criticised the PM for criticising state governments that had chosen to restrict people’s freedom. Morrison utterly condemned calls for violence, he said, but understood that many people are frustrated. Australians have done their bit and governments, he averred, needed to do the same.

This was seen by many as condoning extremism. The first journalist I heard voicing an opinion about Morrison’s words (it happened to be the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Andrew Probyn) expressed a degree of puzzlement. I think this is understandable. We’re puzzled, all of us, but we encourage the type of extreme expressions embodied in the gallows and the nooses. We’re part of the problem, and perhaps this current debate will serve as a turning point. Along with whatever measures the federal government attempts to introduce – though it’s arguable whether they’ll have time to do so before the next federal election – this conversation can be our saving grace.

Marketplace needs more flexibility in pricing tools

You see it all the time, people putting “$0” (which the application turns into “FREE”) for an item for which, the description shows by words, a price must be paid. I find this all the time, so it’s commonplace. The other day I put up a selection of literary fiction priced at $0 but that I wanted to sell for $5 each. I did the same thing for a group of history books as well.

I’d been getting rid of a lot of books. Initially I’d put up pictures of individual books, but found that the response for this method is very limited. Hardly anyone was asking a question. When I put up a number of history books (I think there were 13 in the set) for $50 I got a sudden influx of queries, so evidently I’d hit a nerve. A man came over to my place on two occasions and bought 50 books. Another man got me to mail seven books to his house out near Liverpool. A third man I met at Parramatta to which suburb I’d travelled on the ferry. 

The group photo was magical, so I tried to reproduce the effect by putting up a photo showing novels by Martin Amis, Thomas Pynchon, and Tom Wolfe, among others. The price was $0 and the description had more details, including the fact that they were on sale (and not being given away) but the response this time was surprising in another way. “Is it free,” messaged Enes. “No $5 per book, as per description.” “Why don’t u put as $5 then.” Another person wrote to me, “Hi, is this free?” I mistakenly tapped the prompted button to say “Yes, it’s available” and Monica asked again: “But is it free..?” 

I changed the price attached to the photo to “$5” but I’d felt the pain these people experienced to learn that something they coveted, due to an inspiration rooted deep inside their being, had been denied them. Doubly painful because there might be a reason for their not being able to afford the minuscule $5 necessary to purchase one of my cheap books. 

When Josh came over to buy some of the novels the other day, dressed in hi-vis and wearing boots, he didn’t look like a reader of literary fiction. But I felt his passion when we were browsing. Or, at least, when he was browsing and I was standing by ready to let him know if a book was available or not. He hopefully picked a novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez off a shelf and I hesitated before allowing him to take it. I suggested he should read Haruki Murakami and he took two of the Japanese author’s novels. He asked me what I was reading and I told him it was a Nancy Mitford novel and that this author’d been my father’s favourite.

This personal link to books means that the process for buying them should be better crafted by Facebook. It shouldn’t be enough to let people put “$0” as the price when this is not, in fact, the case. It’s not the seller’s fault that people are disappointed. It’s the intermediary’s fault that the online tools are not flexible enough to account for all situations. If the only way for me to get people interested in my books is to put up photos of groups of books, then the pricing tools should allow me to say “3 for $10 or $5 each” or something similar. Buyers would benefit from being able to do their shopping without the shock of disappointment, and sellers would be able to be honest at the same time as they achieve their sales goals.

Macron dummy spit has Australian media bewildered

I finally saw a news story – it took weeks of flailing about with the same old line – about the submarine bust-up (the federal Australian government cancelled a $90-billion deal for French-designed subs) with some wider relevance. It was by Chris Uhlmann. 

Uhlmann located the French president’s unhappiness in the context of geopolitical ambitions “to leverage his nation’s colonial footprint in New Caledonia and French Polynesia to deal France into the great game of the 21st century; the strategic struggle for the Indo-Pacific”. What some on social media have poo-poohed – Australia’s legacy commitment to French security embodied in WWI and WWII Antipodean military success – is closer to home but few have alluded to it, possibly on account of French sensibilities. 

We’re being very kind to Macron and his people, but if China ever got into a war with the United States it’s highly likely that Russia would join in on her side, so it’s in Macron’s interest to see a strong Australia. Napoleon’s much-repeated quip about English “shopkeepers” seems suddenly ironic.